September 23, 2007

... MoveOn.org paid what is known in the newspaper industry as a standby rate of $64,575 that it should not have received under Times policies. The group should have paid $142,083. The Times had maintained for a week that the standby rate was appropriate, but a company spokeswoman told me late Thursday afternoon that an advertising sales representative made a mistake.

... [T]he ad [also] appears to fly in the face of an internal advertising acceptability manual that says, “We do not accept opinion advertisements that are attacks of a personal nature.” Steph Jespersen, the executive who approved the ad, said that, while it was “rough,” he regarded it as a comment on a public official’s management of his office and therefore acceptable speech for The Times to print....

Eli Pariser, the executive director of MoveOn.org, told me that his group called The Times on the Friday before Petraeus’s appearance on Capitol Hill and asked for a rush ad in Monday’s paper. He said The Times called back and “told us there was room Monday, and it would cost $65,000.” Pariser said there was no discussion about a standby rate. “We paid this rate before, so we recognized it,” he said. Advertisers who get standby rates aren’t guaranteed what day their ad will appear, only that it will be in the paper within seven days....

Jespersen, director of advertising acceptability, reviewed the ad and approved it. He said the question mark after the headline figured in his decision.

The Times bends over backward to accommodate advocacy ads, including ads from groups with which the newspaper disagrees editorially. Jespersen has rejected an ad from the National Right to Life Committee, not, he said, because of its message but because it pictured aborted fetuses. He also rejected an ad from MoveOn.org that contained a doctored photograph of Cheney. The photo was replaced, and the ad ran....

For me, two values collided here: the right of free speech — even if it’s abusive speech — and a strong personal revulsion toward the name-calling and personal attacks that now pass for political dialogue, obscuring rather than illuminating important policy issues. For The Times, there is another value: the protection of its brand as a newspaper that sets a high standard for civility. Were I in Jespersen’s shoes, I’d have demanded changes to eliminate “Betray Us,” a particularly low blow when aimed at a soldier.

Terrible. Embarrassing, too, now that we know it. What else is there that we don't know. Could Hoyt look into that?

By the way, I'd have allowed them to use the language they wanted. I like to see how people choose to express themselves. It's helpful if it's not watered down for more comfortable consumption. I want to taste the poison so I can spit it out. And free speech is kind of an important value too, you know.

It was obvious to anyone who read the ad, that it wasn't for standby. This is the last sentence of the ad: "Today, before Congress and before the American people, General Petraeus is likely to become General Betray Us." [bold addded]

This was the first blog I hopped over to once I read the NY Metro News story, having had discussed it here before! This is a surprise all around, really. To those who said this was a fake controversy (ahem), it is a surprise that it isn't. To those who at least suspect it was, it is a surprise they came clean about it.

Above posters have pointed out half the problem, the other being the NYT's very forceful opposition to the war in Iraq and Administration through its editorial, and more importantly, news pages. You combine that very apparent stand by the paper with a time sensitive ad sold at a stand-by rate to an advocacy group aligned with the NYT on this issue, and you get at least the appearance of a $100k in-kind political contribution by a company that can't really afford it, if it were legal, which it may not be.

"We made a mistake," Catherine Mathis, vice president of corporate communications for The Times, told the newspaper's public editor.

A mistake only in that the NYT-as-house-organ-for-the-Democrats mask was permitted to slip. If the discount data had not been released, we'd have never known, and they'd have seen nothing wrong with it.

DaveTMC, you missed the point. The ad may have made money for Moveon, but it innoculated the General and it helped Petraeus and Bush sell more war to the non-moonbat center. Most people would call it an own-goal, but some may just be in it for the money and to feel righteous about themselves.

I find it unlikely the ad seller could make such a big error unintentionally, but maybe that explains some of the share price loss.

Phil, presumably they bought a standby ad earlier at the standby rate. This ad wasn't standby, but in their shoes, would you bring it up? Or, it could be a Moveon mole fixed their computer account at the standby rate and no one else noticed.

Well, it looks like I was wrong when I said that Giuliani and Thompson were making a mountain out of a molehill. I thought it was odd that they got their ad run that day, but I thought it was just they got lucky and not that they got the discounted rate without the date-uncertainty.

I guess Giuliani's prosecutor's instincts were working just fine on this one.

We all gonna pay, until publications and news outlets declare themselves the partisans they are and declare their de facto $ and propaganda political contributions. Natch, the Times' favorite lady, Hillary, couldn't bring herself to repudiate the Move-On ad as a stand-alone piece of effrontery.

However, a reasonable argument can be made that the Senate had no business voting on a denounciation of the ad. Such actions could have a (ugh, I'm frankly tired of the metaphor) "chilling" effect.

I think the Senate's actions won't chill anyone. But it does raise the stakes a bit in these politicized times and will, I have no doubt, lead to Democrats demanding the denounciation of some ugly statement by someone on the Right.

Wwren, I agree that the First Amendment is irrelevant to this issue, but I think the culture of free speech as a natural right doesn't precisely track the boundaries of the First Amendment and vice versa.

garage mahal said..."This clearly calls for Republicans to bring a resolution condemning discount rates for opposition ads, to go along with the resolution condemning free speech from last week."

When the New York Times or any other media outlet becomes invested as an actual participating player for one side in the partisan games politicos play they cease to be an objective news source. And they can't be trusted either, especially when they do their best to conceal it, lie about it, and then deny that they're doing it.

Meanwhile, whatever it is that FOX News does that gets your bloomers all twisted up in a bunch they do right out in the open with bells on their toes.

In any case, the entire incident is paying dividends to the Republicans, and will provide much material for fund-raising and get-out-the-vote efforts in 2008.

Like Abba Eban said about the Palestinian arabs, the Democrats never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. We'll see many more of these gaffes in the next few months. The Democrats' relationship with MoveOn.org and the netroots will prove fatal to their White House dreams next year.

So why didn't they call for a resolution against Fallon's remarks, which went way beyond MoveOn's play on words.

I admit the the Times is probably trying to atone for how they got duped so badly in 2003-2004. Anyone remember Rice, Cheney et al going on the all the Sunday talk shows with a copy of the Times in their hands to plead their case?

Zeb Quinn said..."When the New York Times or any other media outlet becomes invested as an actual participating player for one side ... they cease to be an objective news source."

That implies that they could be regarded as an objective news column when they were merely making biased calls while presenting themselves as the referee.

It's pointless to pretend that media can be bias free, it can't be, and we'd all be better off if they'd acknowledge that they aren't linesmen who've accidentally strayed onto the pitch, they're as invested in the outcome as any other player.

The NYT has just as many mealy mouthed wimps as the US Senate, but the rate was the right rate if the ad would have canceled if it didn't run Monday and if they'd have run a full-rate ad in it's place if one had come in.

It simply looks like Move On knew in advance the Monday edition wasn't sold and that it was highly likely the ad would run on that date at the standby rate.

But when Althouse seems to think that Petraeus is some kind of patriot she's just flat our wrong. He is a betrayal to his uniform. He cares about his career advancement, not his country.

It was okay to criticize Kerry, who actually had individual awards for valor, but not okay to criticize Petraeus who has nothing but a chest full of gedunk?

"Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of deeply discounted speech, or of the press to profit or even to take a financial bath by selectively offering standby rates to Barbary pirates, privateers, and f*ckers at the New York Times ...”

But when Althouse seems to think that Petraeus is some kind of patriot she's just flat our wrong. He is a betrayal to his uniform. He cares about his career advancement, not his country.

Yeah, a 4 star General has to worry about his career every day. He'd better keep bad news quiet, or he won't get that 5th star.

Under Pinch, the Times mission isn't increasing shareholder value, or bringing accurate and timely information to it's readers. It's accomplishing social change, especially destroying the current administration and harming the United States national interest.

It was okay to criticize Kerry, who actually had individual awards for valor, but not okay to criticize Petraeus who has nothing but a chest full of gedunk?

General Petraeus was awarded a bronze start with a "v" (for valor). The "v" device is awarded only for acts of courage under fire. Are you suggesting that this award was unearned, or otherwise fraudulent?

Gahrie, I'm going out on a limb and guess the content of free speech should be judged by right wing websites. Just a guess! And why won't anyone here condemn Petraeus's boss calling him an ass-kissing chickenshit? Or do you give that much more weight to what a left wing advocacy group says or prints.

Gedaliya, that is exactly what he and quite a few others are doing---questioning if he deserved the medal. To them it's only an outrageous tactic when it is used against them. In service of their agenda it us perfectly acceptable.

I think it is amusing and entertaining to watch the Party of Hate, which is propelled daily by the personal attacks of meanspirited bullies and professional smear artists like Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, etc., suddenly acting like sensitive babies about an ad that hits back for once in the only language that the right-wing actually understands. I would suggest that the crying babies of the authoritarian right grow the F up. At least try to act like you are 12 years old; it would be an improvement.

First, the ad was not as personal as it sounds at first blush. The ad asks hard questions that have to do with the man's discharge of his public duties. These hard questions are dodged under the cloud of manufactured outrage that a military man leader would be criticized, as if the Constitution has been suspended.

MoveOn has also argued against the deification of Petreaus and for the principle that civilians can criticize military leaders.

Now, Ann Althouse and many in the right wing stampede against exercise of first amendment rights , are against any criticism of this man. (Though it's okay for the right wing to criticize serving generals, as the National Review does and retired veterans as they do constantly).

The fact is Petreaus skewed his reports, he cherry-picked the data all in support of issuing to himself and his patron Bush a glowing report card.

Althouse, of course, cares not a bit for the substance of the MoveOn argument, and prefers to obsess over style and adopt the right wing's framing.

The attack on MoveOn is a low point for this nation's dedication to democratic discourse. The right's and sycophantic muddling "middle"'s embrace of censorship is shameful.

I would suggest that the crying babies of the authoritarian right grow the F up.

If the Democratic Party is now run by people who share this attitude, the Republican Party is going to not only keep the presidency in 2008, but it will handily regain control over the House and Senate.

Moneyrunner said... Actually it's less than half price. Is this about a $78,000 contribution to MoveOn.org. It's probably not illegal, but it seems to be unethical. But then, that's a barrier the Times broke through many years ago."

This is typical.

They (moveon.org) paid the equvilant to a standby rate but if it were true standby, they couldn't have picked the day and spot in the paper.

$64,575 is net rate (actual amount paid) MINUS 15% so the quoted rate was about $75,971. Total full price for a page is $142,083. So move on paid about 53.4% of rate card.

We have no idea of the promised frequence of future buys from moveon.org which greatly effects the rates. If this were a one time only, then the NYT had an orphan page and this was found money.

It is not a "contribution". Some admin in adsales was asleep at the switch (or not). But we don't know and the information supplied by the times is, actually, confidential and very much like shooting themselves in the foot.

But the fact remains, NO ONE pays rate card so dream on and keep trying to pin something on them. Its funny reading.

Now, Ann Althouse and many in the right wing stampede against exercise of first amendment rights , are against any criticism of this man.

No one is restricting MoveOn's First Amendment rights. Thank God they have the absolute freedom to reveal the true character of the angry left. Thank God even more for the leading Democratic candidates for president exercising their First Amendment rights either endorsing or keeping silent about MoveOn's disgraceful ad.

You guys are going down in flames next year precisely because MoveOn.org's advertising is protected by the First Amendment.

Many of the nutters and loons posting in this thread seem to think that the MoveOn controversy will marginalize the organization and "piss off middle America." But of course, as usual, the opposite is true. Across the board, polls taken since Petraeus's testimony show declining support for the war, approval of Bush, and belief that the surge is actually producing positive results. People hate Bush, and they hate the war, and they aren't going to be lied into believing it is going well, or bullied into obedience to the right-wing, pro-war agenda.

There was a point on Friday when I was marvelling at the right-wing's incoherent rage over the ad, and the Democrats' cowardice in voting to condemn the ad, that I finally decided MoveOn must be doing sometime right.

The patriotic thing to do is support MoveOn with lavish contributions.

The real reason for the baby-like sobbing fit y'all are having is that finally someone is talking to you in the same tone of voice that you have all used in driving the debate into the sewer with your hatemongering spokesmen over the past 15 years.

I'd say it's time for you to grow up, or at least get a diaper. A lot of us are sick of your shit and don't plan to go along politely with your plans to destroy this country and everything good that it stands for.

>>A couple of things about this IPS “scoop”. IPS reported the alleged exchange on September 12, or yesterday to you and me. The alleged exchange occurred back in March. You also might wonder how IPS got this juicy nugget. Did Admiral Fallon put a call into the news agency renowned for “delving into globalization”? Hardly. IPS got the story from “Pentagon sources familiar with reports of the meeting.” Mind you, IPS didn’t just use just anonymous Pentagon source who might have seen the exchange. IPS relied on sources who not only didn’t witness the exchange, but didn’t even talk to people who witnessed the exchange. They were just “familiar with reports of the meeting.” Allegedly.

A non-standard discount given to a PAC is an in-kind campaign contribution under campaign finance law. The New York Times gave a non-standard discount to the MoveOn PAC and, then, to the Guliani PAC. The New York Times is accordingly in violation of campaign finance law on two counts, and given the New York Times's record on cheering campaign finance laws, the appropriate FEC response is a multi-million-dollar fine.

maybe the right wing nutjobs can sputter with baby-like rage about this:

At 9 pm ET on Saturday, Fox News will air a one hour special about the top commander in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus, who recently argued in Congressional testimony that President Bush's "surge" in Iraq is working. The program, titled "American Commander: Gen. David Petraeus" and hosted by Jon Scott, will look at Petraeus' "life and times."

Maybe some of the smart ones here in this forum can discuss whether Fox News constitutes an in kind contribution to the Republican Party.

This line in the Public Editor's apologia particularly struck me: "For The Times, there is another value: the protection of its brand as a newspaper that sets a high standard for civility." Did anyone else notice that he didn't even try to claim that the Times sets a high standard for political neutrality?

As for the numerous posts from those claiming that the Moveon ad was perfectly fine because after all, Republicans started it with Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, Ann Coulter, et al -- I wondered how long it would take you all to trot that one out. It comes up sure as the sun rises, every time something like this happens, and what I want to know is this: if you all on the far left think that the behavior of Ann Coulter and the rest is so bad, why do you knock yourselves out so to copy them? With all that moral outrage, one would think you would be exerting some effort not to become what you claim to despise. The eagerness to imitate makes it hard to believe the cries of horror.

"Maybe some of the smart ones here in this forum can discuss whether Fox News constitutes an in kind contribution to the Republican Party."

Discussing the official policies of the United States military and the United States government and discussing the life and times of one of the active duty commanders of our non-partisan military on a television show is not the same as running a lame partisan smear campaign (and cash beg) in the New York times. Even someone as willfully stupid as yourself should understand that difference.

But I whole-heartedly encourage lefties to give to MoveOn until it really hurts. I mean, really, really hurts. Sign over your paychecks! The more the radical left pushes, the better the chances that moderate liberals will finally purge themselves of their dead weight and start winning elections. It's not healthy to lack a loyal opposition, whatever the party currently in power.

Pariser said there was no discussion about a standby rate. “We paid this rate before, so we recognized it,” he said.

When did this happen before? It's harder to pass off as an innocent mistake made by a low level clerk if they've done it before.

Nice point.Was this a one-time innocent goof-up or does the NYTimes give discounts to the Far Left on a deliberate, frequent basis in violation of federal eclection laws and it's own journalistic ethics rules?

Standby for some connected people in the biz to be looking long and hard on that.

*********************

Gary Carson - But when Althouse seems to think that Petraeus is some kind of patriot she's just flat our wrong. He is a betrayal to his uniform. He cares about his career advancement, not his country.

It was okay to criticize Kerry, who actually had individual awards for valor, but not okay to criticize Petraeus who has nothing but a chest full of gedunk?

Bullshit.

It's one of those simple little civics principles in the American system that Lefties think they alone can flout.

We cannot function well as a nation with a politicized civil service, military, or judiciary. Our tradition is strongly against that. In the judiciary that has been compromised by Lefty activist judges legislating from the bench and by Bork slimings of judges personal integrity. The Left hasn't dared do it with the Civil Service, but only because the unions would chew a little bastard like Eli Pariser up and spit him out. They have done it with the military, from spitting on returning soldiers in the Vietnam days, to assisting deserters these days, and impugning the honor and integrity of all those who serve.

Trust me. As someone who was overseas a lot, you don't want to transform the Armed Forces into a junta in waiting by forcing the military into domestic politics.

The difference the Left is blind to (and some on the Terri Schiavo whacko right with their venomous attacks on the person of Judge Greer) is in the difference in someone in PRESENT OFFICE holding in what is apolitical office and someone who USED TO BE IN OFFICE BUT IS NOW IN POLITICS.

John Cornyn, a former Texas Supreme Court judge is free to engage in politics and be politically attacked because he is no longer a sitting Justice.Many people who are active politically were ONCE employees of the Federal Civil Service.

And the difference between Sen Kerry and former Senator Cleland and Petraeus - which Lefties don't get - is that Petraeus is active duty and cannot engage in partisan politics, while the former (and Bush) are just politicians that once served in the military and their life's record can be used politically to their credit or detriment.One of the last things I did while serving was trash the fitness report of a very good officer who dumbly got quoted in the media saying he depised the Commander-in-Chief and didn't respect Clinton as fit to give orders.

The real reason for the baby-like sobbing fit y'all are having is that finally someone is talking to you in the same tone of voice that you have all used in driving the debate into the sewer with your hatemongering spokesmen over the past 15 years.

"FInally?" Do you seriously expect us to believe that the left-wing finally said, "Sigh... you know, I'm really tired of addressing my political opponents in a civil and rational tone." Hmm.

Alpha Liberal - So I gave MoveOn another $100. They're closing on $2 million now.

Antiphone - Right on Alpha Liberal, I just gave my first $100 to MoveOn.

Verso - The patriotic thing to do is support MoveOn with lavish contributions.

Excellent!

In 2004, one of our anti-military, anti-American Lefties said she was giving 500 bucks to Cindy Sheehan and Code Pink to help "really mess Republicans up". I told her if she really wanted to mess the Republicans up, she should give to "Friends of Tom DeLay" and help poison the Republicans from within.

So your money for Moveon.org is indeed money well spent, speaking as an anti-Democrat! Give frequently! More poisoning the Democrats from within!

I will note that no, or few, conservatives here are addressing why citizens must not criticize military leaders.

Nor how you square that belief with the democratic traditions that (formerly) made America great. Can you quote Franklin, Madison, Washington or Jefferson saying military leaders must not be criticized? (no doubt Washington had cause to wish for same...)

The right wing, and Ann Althouse, are pushing a profoundly anti-American position.

I don't believe for one minute that alphaliberal is too dumb to see the difference between criticizing a military leader and doing what Moveon and the Times did. If this situation were politically reversed, I'll bet the difference would suddenly become crystal clear and alphaliberal would abruptly lose all need to ask disingenuous, insincere rhetorical questions.

mcg, do you really believe that American citizens should not criticize military leaders?

Or does that only apply when those military leaders are echoing GOP talking points? Seems like your view.

The problem is that active military cannot defend themselves. When you attack Kerry's or Bush's military service, they are fully able to defend themselves.

So, it comes across to many as kicking someone when they are down, or slugging someone when their friends are holding their arms - essentially unfair.

So, you are attacking someone's honor in a situation where they can't defend themselves. It is one thing to attack their position, but attacking their honor is different, very different.

And claiming that the Gen. was echoing GOP talking points does that too - since you are suggesting that he doesn't believe his own testimony, but is rather testifying to please the politicians who gave him his command.

You are smarter than you're pretending to be, Alphaliberal. The story is not about Move On's absolute right to criticize a military leader, or even to lie about him. They have a right to do that that I would uphold.

The issue is the New York Times' pretense to objectivity being revealed as hollow. They gave Move On a huge discount they wouldn't have given you or me (or at least me), strictly because of the politics. And then they lied about it.

If you want to talk about whether Americans are allowed to criticize military leaders, go start a blog about that. If you want to talk about whether the NY Times should be encouraged to lie about blatantly playing politics, that's the subject here.

The real surprise isn't that the NYT gave a leftist group a bargain on its ad rates, or that they lied about having done it... but that they actually *admitted* to having done it.

As a publicly traded company, the Times would have been forced to divulge this information eventually. If they were setting preferential ad rates and thereby depressing revenues as a matter of policy, the stockholders would have a right to know about that.

Yes, it looks from the Public Editor's column as if the NYT did do so, on Giuliani's demand. That doesn't seem to me to mean a lot, though. Once the Moveon decision was out there in the public eye, the NYT really had no choice but to sell one ad to an opponent at the same price.

antiphone said... Well Cedarford, if you really believe donating to MoveOn is the best way to hurt Democrats you’ll be making a donation yourself. No?

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<I not only contributed to Ralph Nader, I encouraged my most vehemently liberal and environmentalist acquaintances to 'send a message' and to 'make sure their vote was not wasted on one of the cookie-cutter candidates,' and 'stand up this ONE TIME for what they knew to be right.'

It looks like the true Nader-momentum is with Move-on these days, and so, Yes, antiphone, I will be contributing to them, and suggesting they have been way too restrained, and asking that they hit out as only they know how to hit, and try to be Really Forceful in their rhetoric instead of pussing around, since it's what the American public needs and in its heart Really Wants to hear.

Patreus is a political general and became that the second he stepped up to defend Bush

Not according to anyone at any point in his career, including no Democrats at his confirmation hearing. Petreaus' reputation was precisely the opposite.

But hell, hdhouse, why not say it? Why not tell big lies? That's Move On's strategy. Slime him. At least 35 percent will believe anything you say. Joseph Goebbels would be proud. You'll be vocally defended on this site and elsewhere. And if anyone on the left knows the facts, they'll stay quiet and to avoid Jane Hamsher's dictates. So anyone who criticizes you can be disregarded as a "brownshirt."

As far as the legal aspect of this controversy goes, Giuliani is a candidate and has different legal status from MoveOn. If there were legal problems under campaign finance laws for the “discounted” price of an ad, it’s more likely they would apply to Giuliani’s presidential campaign than to MoveOn’s issue advocacy.

Whatshisname said: The issue is the New York Times' pretense to objectivity being revealed as hollow. They gave Move On a huge discount they wouldn't have given you or me (or at least me), strictly because of the politics. And then they lied about it.

Hey, whatshisname, you have no actual proof of any of that, do you?

In fact, you're the one who is lying, aren't you?

the public editor says the discount rate was the result of an "advertising sales representative [who] made a mistake."

Now, you're free to believe this is a lie, but don't pretend it is anything more than your own supposition. You have no actual evidence that the rate was "strictly because of the politics," or that they lied about it afterwards.

I don't think there should be any restrictions on how much the Times charges for MoveOn ads. I think the Times should be able to give the space away for free if it wants to support the aims of MoveOn.org.

I believe the only requirement for such largess is that the Times publicly disclose its actions.

Revenant said... The real surprise isn't that the NYT gave a leftist group a bargain on its ad rates, or that they lied about having done it... but that they actually *admitted* to having done it.

Here we have another great example of the information processing skills of wingnuts. The same information processing skills that have dug this country into the hole it is in after 7 years of Bush's failed presidency.

It does not appear to have occurred to Revenant that, in fact, the NTY did not "admit" to what he says they admitted. (That means he's lying, unless it means he's stupid. I'll put my money on lying.)

The NYT admitted making a mistake, but the nutters and loons of the Bush cult now claim that the NYT admitted something else: giving a politically motivated discount to a far-left group, then lying about it.

So what do we have? We have wingnuts lying to accuse other people of lying.

Verso, the Times has changed its story. Their calling it a "mistake" today is a change from the previous story, in which they said Move On paid the standby rate and just got lucky. So the first story was a lie. That's what I was referring to.

Oh please. It's so funny to see the wingnuts rail against free enterprise and free speech. The NY Times can charge whatever it wants to whoever it wants.

As for the ad, it was mild. Petreaus is a bigoted liar who should be treated with zero respect. If I were to meet him in person, I would have no problem calling him a scumbag to his face.

As for the wingnuts, they can call Private Beauchamp "evil" and make up lies about Medal of Honor winners like John Kerry, but you'll get tasered if you dare to point out that General Betrayus was lying to Congress (which he did).

"If I were to meet him in person, I would have no problem calling him a scumbag to his face."

That's a laugh. You're a chickenshit coward, hurling your crap, safely anonymous. You wouldn't dare say in person the stupid shit you say on here (and elsewhere) because someone would pop you in the nose and, of course, you'd cry like a little girl.

Most people are actually reasonable in person, and I've met quite a few people of political stripes quite different from my own with whom I've been able to share an interesting conversation.

Now, let's see how long it takes you to turn yet another conversation into another of your weird attempts to reenact the primal scene of your existential despair, your weird hang-ups about your sexuality that you were never able to work out with mommy and daddy.

I urge everyone here, left or right or whatever, from engaging with dtl. He's not here to have a conversation. He posts comments in the worst faith. Don't let him destroy the conversation (if it's not already destroyed for other reasons) because that's what he's trying to do.

By saying that the New York Times violated the campaign finance law with its ad about General Betrayus, you are conceding the fact that the military is now a 100% fully owned subsidiary of the Republican party.

By saying that the New York Times violated the campaign finance law with its ad about General Betrayus, you are conceding the fact that the military is now a 100% fully owned subsidiary of the Republican party.

Um, no. They're saying "MoveOn Political Action" is a registered political action committee. If MoveOn Political Action used an in-kind contribution from the NYTimes to express dislike of broccoli, it would still be a campaign finance violation, yet it wouldn't constitute a particle of evidence that broccoli is a subsidiary of the Republican Party.

And the Giuliani thing just indicates the New York Times broke the law two times. That the PACs involved are in certain respects opponents doesn't actually matter from the legal perspective. We just have the Times hoising itself on its own campaign-finance-reform petard twice instead of once, a compounded crime.

Who knew the republicans and conservatives were so sensitive. Anyway, it is much easier to bitch about some ad for days on end rather than talking about the war or any other important issues. I guess this is a helpful distraction for the republicans. None of you were outraged at John Boehner's comments about the "small price" we have paid for the war but if John Kerry botches a joke the place is up for grabs with fake outrage that lasts for days and days.

Also, Moveon just announced that they are going to pay the full rate and have asked Rudy to do the same.

Also, after reading all of these comments and blog posts by Althouse it is amazing that she thinks of herself as a moderate or independent. This is a lie. Why not just embrace your support for the republicans rather than pretending to be something for who knows what reason. Oh yea, you don't hate the gays like the rest of the republicans so I guess that makes you moderate.

All this blog does is bitch about Hilary, Bill, Obama, John Edwards, the NYTimes, Moveon, left wing websites, left wing actors, left, left, left.

There is never any discussion around issues revolving republicans or conservatives that isn't generally complimentary.

I don't think of that as independent or moderate. I think of it as boring and predictable.

I came to this site because somewhere it was referred to as a moderate blog but that is just not true. Nothing wrong with that and maybe that is not how is publicizes itself and maybe I have the wrong impression.

Also, when 90% of the comments here are from diehard republicans with a free liberals thrown in it kind of reinforces the idea that this is a conservative site-again nothing wrong with that but don't lie.

Isn't this blogger pro choice also but supported the recent supreme court nominees? If they were to decide on repealing Roe v Wade would that we unsettling to a Pro choice "independent"? Or maybe it doesn't matter any more because heaven knows she is past her child bearing age.

Ann is allowed to blog about what she wants, and she is allowed to claim she is a liberal even if she is pro-war. If that's what interests her, it is her blog and she can blog about it. I like to talk about some issues that are of interest to me, and I get annoyed when people automatically assume I am left-wing because of that. Ann comes across as moderate to me, but pro-war, which is ok, even if I disagree with it.

MCG - It's not embarassing to be associated with moveon. They are a respectable organization. Only the wingnuts are bothered by moveon. Most of this country could care less, or agree with them. They have 3 million members after all, which is a lot.

It's not impromper at all. The NY Times can charge whatever rates they damn well please.

If I had to guess, my hunch is that too many organizations were demanding the $65,000 rate, which in reality, was probably only used in certain situations. Thus, it was threatening its revenue. They might still allow people to buy ads at $65K, but for the sake of profit and negotiating power, you want people to assume it is much much higher. I'd bet a lot of money that that is what is going on right now.

Craig, do you think that you score big points by pointing out that a woman is "past child-bearing age"? Obviously you do, or you wouldn't have put it in your post. Evidently, given your dislike for !posts by those you seem to think are Republicans or conservatives, you also believe that you are liberal/progressive/enlightened/non-sexist etc. etc. Sadly, you just can't have it both ways. Cognitive dissonance!

Seems to me that one aspect about the legality of this in kind donation has to do with the reporting requirements. A private company like the NYT probably can donate money to moveon.org, but it probably also is a donation that needs to be reported to somebody, be it to the IRS, or the FEC, or some New York state body. And speaking of state law, there may be some other violation there. And that's not even getting to civil liability under a shareholder action.

If you had a house that was worth $142,083, and someone was willing to pay that price, and you sold it for $64,575, would you think that you had a good sense of economics?

Better yet --- let's say Bush had a house that was worth $500,000, but he only paid $250,000 for it when he bought it from a supporter.

I guess nobody would see a problem.

It simply looks like Move On knew in advance the Monday edition wasn't sold and that it was highly likely the ad would run on that date at the standby rate.

Can I interest you in some beachside property in Montana? Such naivete has to be used by somebody wiser than you.

It was okay to criticize Kerry, who actually had individual awards for valor, but not okay to criticize Petraeus who has nothing but a chest full of gedunk?

Hmm, you criticized Petraeus for being obsessed with his career --- and then complain about Kerry being questioned by other soldiers?

Interesting.

Even a flaming lefty like you should be able to tell the difference between condemning the ability to speak, and the content of that speech.

I'll remind you that these same lefties thought Bush actually claimed Mandela was killed by Hussein. Telling the difference between things seems to not be a strong suit.

The real reason for the baby-like sobbing fit y'all are having is that finally someone is talking to you in the same tone of voice that you have all used in driving the debate into the sewer with your hatemongering spokesmen over the past 15 years.

Can we now accuse you of complicity in genocide? God knows the GOP has been hit with that smear frequently enough.

I mean, Robert Byrd, former Klansman, is CLEARLY representative of Dems. The constant "outing" of gay conservatives indicates that liberals really hate gay people. The love of insane conspiracy theories indicates psychotic issues.

Do you REALLY want to get into more mud-slinging?

Yes, and it's a conversation that apparently suffers from Vietnam- and Reagan-era amnesia.

Those weren't "attacks". They were asking "tough questions". There's a world of difference --- well, in the eyes of those who don't maintain consistency minute-to-minute.

By saying that the New York Times violated the campaign finance law with its ad about General Betrayus, you are conceding the fact that the military is now a 100% fully owned subsidiary of the Republican party.

Well, if the one part of the government that actually does its job well supports the GOP, I can handle that just fine.

I would have no problem calling General Betrayus a scumbag to his face. Zero. I called my sister a c&unt to her face after all. Big deal.

Explains why your family hates you.

MCG - It's not embarassing to be associated with moveon. They are a respectable organization. Only the wingnuts are bothered by moveon. Most of this country could care less, or agree with them. They have 3 million members after all, which is a lot.

Hey, it's almost 1% of the population!!!

It's not impromper at all. The NY Times can charge whatever rates they damn well please.

Not under McCain/Feingold. Which, mind you, the NYT championed heavily.

If I had to guess, my hunch is that too many organizations were demanding the $65,000 rate, which in reality, was probably only used in certain situations. Thus, it was threatening its revenue. They might still allow people to buy ads at $65K, but for the sake of profit and negotiating power, you want people to assume it is much much higher. I'd bet a lot of money that that is what is going on right now.

By saying that the New York Times violated the campaign finance law with its ad about General Betrayus, you are conceding the fact that the military is now a 100% fully owned subsidiary of the Republican party.

Assume for the sake of arguement that this is true. Now take the next step and ask yourself why.

You can start with thirty years of Democratic politicians selling out the military and America's vital interests.

Folks, it simply is not correct that the NY Times can give a discount for any reason that it wants. MoveOn.org is a registered political committee as defined by the law, so it must conduct its business according to those laws---as must those who do business with it.

What would simply be a discount to non-political organization can be interpreted as an in-kind contribution to a political one---effectively a soft-money contribution equal to the amount of the discount given over the usual and normal charge. Corporations are expressly forbidden by 2. U.S.C. P441b and 11 C.F.R. P100.52(d)(1) from making a contribution of this sort.

Look, as I said, I don't think it should be illegal. I think that such contributions ought to be disclosed, but not illegal. Nevertheless I see the recent actions both by the N.Y. Times to publicly state that this was a mistake, and the move by MoveOn.org to pay the difference, as an attempt to distance themselves from accusations of violating the law.

It's time to put Giuliani in jail - because he got a discount from the Times - and is in violation of the Campaign Finance law - at least according to Marxists like MikeinSC who no nothing about the law, and who who oppose the First Amendment.

MikeinSC also has zero problem when the military becomes a partisan organization.

If the military is now equivalent to the Republican party, which MikeinSC says it is, then please tell me what is the problem with opposing the military and calling its incompetent generals scumbags?

I have to admit MoveOn.org's move to pay the difference, and their call for Giuliani to do the same, is an interesting chess move. I'll be interested to see what Rudy does.

And I am more certain than ever that DTL got ripped off by the folks who administered his IQ test. I mean, it's utter malpractice that he would be fooled into thinking he wasn't deficient in basic logic.

It's time to put Giuliani in jail - because he got a discount from the Times - and is in violation of the Campaign Finance law - at least according to Marxists like MikeinSC who no nothing about the law, and who who oppose the First Amendment.

Unlike the NYT, I didn't support the law in the first place. But, hey, don't let reality slow ya down, Sparky!

BTW, should such rampant typos be coming from somebody who promises --- HONESTLY!!! --- to not be a blithering moron.

MikeinSC also has zero problem when the military becomes a partisan organization.

Logic now joins symbolism and metaphors in the lengthy list of things you don't know a thing about.

If the military is now equivalent to the Republican party, which MikeinSC says it is, then please tell me what is the problem with opposing the military and calling its incompetent generals scumbags?

You are free to do so.

And then you can also whine about your sexuality problems with your family, which simply makes most people laugh.-=Mike

Folks, it simply is not correct that the NY Times can give a discount for any reason that it wants. MoveOn.org is a registered political committee as defined by the law, so it must conduct its business according to those laws---as must those who do business with it.

The NY Times is a newspaper and is protected by the First Amendment as to what it can print in its pages. I do not believe it comes under the rubric of McCain-Feingold or any other campaign finance laws.

mcg - So now believing that the First Amendment guarantees freech speech equals low IQ.

No. That's good sense and I'm glad you have it. This, however, reflects low IQ:

By saying that the New York Times violated the campaign finance law with its ad about General Betrayus, you are conceding the fact that the military is now a 100% fully owned subsidiary of the Republican party.

We have a good word for people like Mcg - Fascists.

Thank goodness dolts like you have watered down that word so much through overuse as to be meaningless. Otherwise I might be offended! Nah, nevermind, it takes someone with more credibility than you to cause me offense.

The NY Times is a newspaper and is protected by the First Amendment as to what it can print in its pages.

The N.Y. Times enjoys no more protection in the First Amendment than we do. In fact, arguably less, because it is a for-profit organization. There is no doubt that campaign finance reform has abridged our free speech rights. But it abridged theirs, too.

Well if the New York Times violated McCain Feingold, why don't you try bringing a lawsuit against it.

I don't need to; a complaint with the F.E.C has already been filed.

Let's see how far you get? I can tell you before you even try - you'll get nowhere.

Actually, what I would really like is for it to go quite far---all the way to the Supreme Court---and for the N.Y. Times to prevail. But I don't think that's goingt to happen. For one thing, I think the recent maneuvers may have given the FEC enough wiggle room not to proceed. And yet, even if by some miracle it made it to the SC, I don't think I can trust even the Roberts court to strike down the BCRA.

Context context context. The ad was anti-Patraeus and anti-war. It was not an ad that advocated for or against any candidate or ballot issue, at least not as its main purpose. If the ad pertained to somebody or something on the ballot and was an effort to sway voters then we'd have an entirely different kettle of fish.

If anybody has a filing requirement here it's not the NYT but rather the receipient of the gift, moveon.org, which, as a 501(c)(4) nonprofit organization, certainly has filing requirements with the IRS with respect to like kind contributions. I don't see how under these facts it has any electoral commission filing requirements.

The NYT may have violated its own corporate bylaws by giving a donation here, and therefore have civil liability to its shareholders. They seem to be trying to insulate them from that accusation by claiming mistake.

The 30-day timeframe doesn't apply here. This isn't about an election; this is about the regulation of contributions to registered political committee.

Remember I'm coming at this as someone who doesn't think this should be the law. That doesn't make me right, by any means. But I'm not doing this just to prove a point that the NYT is e-e-e-e-e-evil, either. I think that it's enough, frankly, that the public knows that the NYT gave MoveOn a hefty discount.

You know MikeinSC- whenever people push me like that - it inspires me to go fool a straight woman.

I actually was talking to a girl this weekend, who I could tell liked me, but I never got a chance to tell her I was gay.

She lives out of town. Because of you - I think I'll lead her on for a few months.

Nothing like sabatoging a straight woman's love life.

Will be fun.

But getting back to the topic at hand, the FEC complaint will go nowhere. Because no law has been violated.

While we're at it - why is nobody trying ot shut down the license for FOX - since they've obviously become a partisan organization and have started censoring comments against the war. That's more of a travesty if you ask me.

You know MikeinSC- whenever people push me like that - it inspires me to go fool a straight woman.

You wouldn't fool them. Trust me.

I actually was talking to a girl this weekend, who I could tell liked me, but I never got a chance to tell her I was gay.

Might want to work on that radar thing of yours.

She lives out of town. Because of you - I think I'll lead her on for a few months.

Nothing like sabatoging a straight woman's love life.

Will be fun.

You truly are a worthless person.

While we're at it - why is nobody trying ot shut down the license for FOX - since they've obviously become a partisan organization and have started censoring comments against the war. That's more of a travesty if you ask me.

I have no personal problem with anyone making an in-kind contribution of any size to any political organization of their choice, with exactly one exception. That exception is when the contributor advocated the laws that regulate in-kind contributions. In that case, I want the contributor nailed to the wall as painfully as the law allows and driven to admit the law was a mistake.

I don't believe in dragging people's consensual sexual history into sexual harassment suits, or setting up a court-appointed special prosecutor to badger them, similarly with one exception. That exception is when the guy hounded is the guy who enacted the law that made his sexual history admissible, and enacted the law that allowed the appointment of the prosecutor. Then he should be beaten to a bloody pulp by the implements he forged.

The man who advocates laws against cross-race marriages should be discovered to be a quarter-black, and thus have his marriage annulled under those laws, while others are left to marry freely. The man who votes to ban medical marijuana, in a just universe, will suffer glaucoma and nausea and anything else medical marijuana could cure. And so on.

So, yes, I want to see the FEC come down on the New York Times so hard that Pinch Schulzberger's teeth rattle. And then see the FEC spend the next ten years exclusively harassing every other advocate of campaign finance reform in existence, until its unconstitutional speech-supressing ass is finally shot off by the Supreme Court.

Which will require a Supreme Court a lot more right-wing than this one, since liberal Supreme Court Justices seem to have this delusion the First Amendment is there to protect on-stage masturbation but not political speech.

DTL, you keep trying that line of argument but it really doesn't fly. After all, it was Congress who demanded in its legislation that Petraeus appear on Sept. 10/11 (and of course, the President who agreed to it by signing the bill). Petraeus could be a donut salesman and his appearance would be a political act by nature of the people who called him there.

But more importantly, the CFR issue at play here has nothing whatsoever to do with the content of the advertisement. Zilcho! It has everything to do with the legal status of the entity known as MoveOn.org. If Petraeus were a donut salesman, and Dunkin Donuts took out a full-page ad preemptively challenging his testimony, and the NYT gave them a discount on that advertisement---the CFR wouldn't apply. It is entirely because of the exact legal status of MoveOn.org that makes CFR relevant.

The law says absolutely nothing about what an organization can be charged for advertising rates. If the New York Times wanted to charge them $1, they could. They are a for profit enterprise, and they have every incentive to maximize profit - which I am certain they did in this case.

And the wingnuts can only pretend mock horror from this ad, because they are unable to debate the real facts on the ground - that the Iraq War is a waste of money with zero defined end goals

Bruce Hayden makes an interesting argument. "The problem is that active military cannot defend themselves. When you attack Kerry's or Bush's military service, they are fully able to defend themselves. "

However, this is false. Gen Petreaus writes op-eds, one six weeks before the 2004 election inappropriately boosting Bush's position. He also does TV shows, testifies in front of Congress and can make a public address. The general has hardly been neutered.

"The Washington Post, 9/26/04Battling for Iraq

BYLINE: David H. PetraeusSECTION: Editorial; B07LENGTH: 1239 wordsDATELINE: BAGHDADHelping organize, train and equip nearly a quarter-million of Iraq's security forces is a daunting task. Doing so in the middle of a tough insurgency increases the challenge enormously, making the mission akin to repairing an aircraft while in flight -- and while being shot at. Now, however, 18 months after entering Iraq, I see tangible progress. Iraqi security elements are being rebuilt from the ground up. "

Sounds like a man who can field criticisms of his work and his report card on his work.

The law says absolutely nothing about what an organization can be charged for advertising rates.

DTL, I encourage you to read the portions of the code I have cited. The law explicitly discusses discounts given to political organizations. No, it doesn't discuss advertising in particular, because it is far more general than that.

Here's a portion from 11 C.F.R. 100.52(d)(1):

The provision of any goods or services without charge or at a charge that is less than the usual or normal charge for such goods or services is a contribution... If goods or services are provided at less than the usual and normal charge, the amount of the in-kind contribution is the difference between the usual and normal charge for goods or services at the time of the contribution and the amount charged the political committee."

By the N.Y. Times own admission it undercharged MoveOn.org by over $77K. Corporations are forbidden under the law to make any contributions to organizations like MoveOn.